Monday, July 27, 2015

The War on Drugs. What's Next?

The current strategies to wean the populace from illegal drugs has not made a dent in the use of these drugs, and may have actually made things worse. Where should we go from here?

Wow, I'm surprised to hear you say that the so-called "war" on drugs failed.

I'd like to replace that whole effort with a "war" on poverty. Except, can we drop the war metaphors? Who are we at war with? Ourselves?

I'm actually surprised that you don't know that the progressive establishment has had a war on poverty for much longer than there has been a war on drugs. By the success standard set up by that war, the war on drugs has been a smashing success. The lesson to be learned is that government never identifies the causes of the problems they want to fix, and then spends billions of taxpayer dollars promoting the wrong solutions. Government should stick to the well-defined goals established for it in the Constitution.

I know that some people have wanted to get rid of poverty, but I'd like it to be a national focus. I'd like all of us to battle poverty. Oops; another war metaphor.

I agree about those well-defined goals, like the reason for the existence of the country in the first place:

"We the People of the United States, in order to
  1. form a more perfect union, 
  2. establish justice
  3. insure domestic tranquility
  4. provide for the common defence
  5. promote the general welfare, and 
  6. secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, 
do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Poverty prevents 2, 3, 5, and 6 from being attainable for all, don't you think?

You have the right to "Life, Liberty, And the pursuit of Happiness".  Number 5 is where the government may step in to fight poverty. Providing for the general welfare of the citizens. But how to accomplish this task? So far, hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent, and in many cases, it can be shown the government programs have made things worse, much like the War on Drugs, where it sounded like a good idea to make minor infractions into felonies to discourage drug use. It didn't work, and the efforts now are to reverse the damage done by that idea. But when discussing poverty, bad  government programs just keep moving along, wreaking havoc in their paths. And rather than repealing these wayward programs, they are often duplicated across multiple government agencies.

You just can't kill a bad idea once it's in the hands of politicians. And they can take good ideas and ruin them through bad implementation.

Whoa, you are really down on politicians. Maybe you need to hang out with a different group of people? There are some very thoughtful politicians you might like in our area.

In any event, you asked, "what's next?" How about a war on war? I think diplomacy got a real boost in the arm with this Iran proposal, don't you think?

There are politicians, and then there are party politics. They are not the same, and good politicians will often vote for or against things that are beneficial to the party, whether they like it or not. Trust me here.

Remember when we were kids, and I'd trade you 3 Hot Wheels cars for a GI Joe Apollo astronaut suit? That was diplomacy and negotiation. The president gave the Iranians money, eliminated all sanctions (even the ones that had nothing to do with nuclear arms), agreed that they determine when and where inspections will take place (if at all), and said we have made a great deal and avoided war. If you think that's diplomacy, then I want you to agree that everything I say is correct, start going to church on Sundays, join the Republican party, and do all of that without expecting anything from me in return.

Hey, you're right! I feel better about our arrangement already! Diplomacy does work! Excuse me while I go celebrate out in the streets!

Diplomacy is hard because it is a compromise with one's enemy. But if we can all work toward better relations, then we can begin to see where we humans have commonalities. That is the endgame, not any particular temporary agreement. So, I'm glad to see communication with Iran, and Cuba for that matter. It may not work, but it is worth a try.

If you want more war, vote for Scott Walker. He has said he would abandon the treaty on the first day of his presidency. But, dear Mr. Future President Walker, what if the treaty is working? Wouldn't that be foolish to throw it away? Oh, unless you don't want peace.

I believe that you are naively believing that leaders in a country act in a way that benefits the citizens in that particular country. The people of North Korea are likely to have many of the same goals and needs of Americans. But the Communist leaders of that country are currently starving their own people to death. The goal of the US should be to ensure the civil liberties and humanitarian treatment of the regimes we deal with. The deal with Iran and the dealings with Cuba accomplish none of that.

I think that being able to have regular populace in the two countries (USA and Cuba, and USA and Iron) carry on regular conversations is a great way to show what a great country we have.

Scott Walker, and most of the Democrats in Congress, understand this deal with Iran doesn't accomplish anything the administration laid out as their original goals. Perhaps all of those Democrats don't want peace, either?

I think that the Military Industrial Complex drives a lot of politics.

It seems once again we agree on something. The goals of diplomacy should be to help the common people of other countries recognize the same rights as Americans, while ensuring the security of the US. Unfortunately, giving in to murderous dictators, without acquiring those rights for their people or maintaining our safety, doesn't seem to be the smartest way to accomplish that goal.

Wait, weren't we talking about drug wars?

And what comes next. 

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please be kind and respectful. Thanks!